search

w3c / svgwg

SVG Working Group specifications
Other
708 stars 133 forks source link

SVG Paths spec vs Paths chapter of SVG2 #148

Open SimonSapin opened 8 years ago

SimonSapin commented 8 years ago

https://svgwg.org/ lists an SVG Paths Editor's Draft at https://svgwg.org/specs/paths/ , but the SVG 2 ED also has a Paths chapter with similar content: https://svgwg.org/svg2-draft/paths.html . The situation is similar with some other drafts/chapters.

It looks like the intention was to move some chapters into separate "module" specs, which sounds good. Except that the "old" chapter is still there, is apparently getting many more commits since the module spec was created:

To add to (my) confusion, the path module has at least one new (since SVG 1.1) feature that’s not in SVG 2 (Catmull-Rom commands).

Shouldn’t one of the two copies at least have a big red warning saying "Don’t at this, look at the other one [link]"? Or better yet, be entirely removed and replaced with a link, like how the Transforms section https://svgwg.org/svg2-draft/coords.html#TransformProperty now only links to css-transforms?

In the mean time, as an implementor, which spec should I read?

AmeliaBR commented 8 years ago

Consider the modules to be early drafts of "SVG 3".

The SVG 2 spec contains features that we think can be spec'ed & implemented this year. The modules contain more advanced features that need more work. The intention is to follow a modular approach to all future development of SVG, but building on a new foundation defined by SVG 2.

So, for example, Catmull-Rom splines were removed from SVG 2 because they introduce too many complexities & edge cases that have not yet been specified. They are still in the draft Paths module because we would still like to include them eventually.

As an implementer, focus first on the SVG 2 spec. If there are any sections in SVG 2 which are not clear enough to implement, please file bugs (if they don't already exist). We are trying to get the spec to a candidate recommendation status within the next month.

As for adding a warning, I'm not sure how best to do that. The eventual plan is that the modules will supercede the corresponding chapter of SVG 2, but those modules won't be ready for another year or more.

nikosandronikos commented 8 years ago

At the moment, those specs are really just holding grounds for the text that was written for SVG 2 and then ripped out. I thought the Editor's Draft status would indicate where to look, but to be fair we have published Working Drafts of these specs in TR.

In 5762f724932c35af45f4333a85c8baac4a9ef6f1, 675f1b221cdc3030758f7a48e6b4692c982e9c14, and 9b636243e39fd4c23a9315ba90b2f18c66cda93d I added notes to Paths, Strokes, and Markers to indicate they are early drafts and shouldn't be considered normative replacements yet. After SVG 2 is published, I'll look at publishing new WDs of these specs so that note gets included. Hopefully there'll be some interest in finishing these features then.

@heycam I notice those specs aren't being rebuilt on push?